Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
28 online now:
PaulK, Theodoric (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,827 Year: 16,863/19,786 Month: 988/2,598 Week: 234/251 Day: 5/58 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 226 of 276 (582248)
09-20-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:24 PM


Re: trust
riVeRraT writes:

I think Jesus taught us a bunch of things, and if you can see the truth in those things, then you are on your way to faith.


A lot of us here are moving away from faith. Faith is a second-rate system. Jesus Himself told Thomas to look at the evidence. He would like you to understand the truth in what He said and internalize it, not just have faith in it. Often atheists understand the truth in Jesus' words better than Christians do - because they don't rely on faith.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:24 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 2:11 PM ringo has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 227 of 276 (582249)
09-20-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Taq
09-20-2010 1:54 PM


wow, didn't see that coming.
"Taq" writes:

Then comes the hard part, getting the objective evidence to back it up.

Yea, the double blind, scientific study evidence to prove the creator of everything, who doesn't want you to prove He exists, will be hard, and probably impossible to find.

Learning to accept that was a process for me. It is the reason why creation science is bogus. It is also a measuring stick for a lot of evangelism. When evangelists try to tell us things in a scientific way, using statistics and facts. Faith is not about that, faith is entirely subjective (or your subjective take on some objective evidences). Nothing is proven in faith, and the degree of faith is way higher than believing in objective things like scientific results.

It is the reason why the whole concept of this forum is bogus. Sitting here and comparing objective evidences about creation, and evolution is just a huge waste of time. Still we enjoy the conversations here. If we are comparing evolution vs creation, objectively, evolution wins hands down. Forum over, pack it up. You win.

If anything, people should learn from this forum the truth about things. I am all for the truth.

Thanks Taq for agreeing with me. I was surprised to say the least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 09-20-2010 1:54 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Taq, posted 09-20-2010 6:07 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 228 of 276 (582251)
09-20-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ringo
09-20-2010 2:04 PM


Re: trust
A lot of us here are moving away from faith. Faith is a second-rate system. Jesus Himself told Thomas to look at the evidence. He would like you to understand the truth in what He said and internalize it, not just have faith in it. Often atheists understand the truth in Jesus' words better than Christians do - because they don't rely on faith.

Yea, I'm fine with that. I also see more "Jesus like" behavior in atheists, and some jews, and some muslims than most Christians. Like I said, it's not about what you proclaim with your mouth.
Not sure what you mean by faith being second rate. What verse are you talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 2:04 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 2:26 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 956 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 229 of 276 (582252)
09-20-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Atheism IS a belief
Hi, riVeRrat.

riVeRrat writes:

Bluejay writes:

The default position should be set at "0," not at whatever value people have set it at in the past.

Yea, define "0". "0" assumes we know everything, and we don't. "0" is subjective.

"0" here, of course, refers to the number of assumptions, not the number of gods.

Start with no assumptions (that's the default position), then add assumptions only when they are useful or meaningful or fairly incontrovertible.

"Humans have always believed X" is not a good reason to include the assumption X. Therefore, leave it out unless you can find a better reason to include it.

Why is this so complicated?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:36 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 230 of 276 (582253)
09-20-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Atheism IS a belief
riVeRraT writes:

Tell me one thing that Jesus suggested that is the "wrong thing".


"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:34-36

Sounds a bit wrong to me, you shouldn't fight with your family.

Even when I was not a believer, I have a problem with the concept of science dictation all of what is right or wrong.

Science doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. Science is a way of finding out how the world works.

Especially since science can change when better data becomes available.

Are you saying it shouldn't change to incorporate better data?

So my concept of right and wrong can change with it?

Concepts of right and wrong change all the time. Once, slavery was thought to be right, once Jews were reviled by the church. It's a bit different now, isn't it?

One day wine is no good for you, the next day a few glasses is good for you. Come on dude, that sometimes sounds more crazy that believing in a god.

Not really, no, since those "findings" are based on actual data, and the latter is not. By the way, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any scientific study that claims "wine is good for you" or "wine is bad for you" Don't confuse what the media report with what scientists think.

In a way science can be like the wind, and we should just take it for what it is worth, and not make science into our god.

I don't know anybody that is doing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:32 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17292
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 231 of 276 (582255)
09-20-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 2:11 PM


Re: trust
riVeRraT writes:

Not sure what you mean by faith being second rate.


Faith is a fall-back position, a backup. It should only be used when we have no evidence. Unfortunately, creationists/fundamentalists often use faith as an excuse to ignore or even deny evidence.

Using faith instead of evidence is like keeping your handbrake on all the time. It's likely to do more harm than good. Faith should be used only when it's needed (if ever).


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 2:11 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2963 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 232 of 276 (582258)
09-20-2010 2:48 PM


I really hate when atheists do just what you did. There has to be a name for it, something like, lying?

Jesus doesn't stop us from doing anything, only you can, by following His ways. If you follow His ways, you are believing in Him, if you are not, then you are not believing in Him. You can say whatever you want with your mouth, that doesn't mean crap.

In other words, God is not omnipotent and has no power to stop you. It is all you.

In regards to the meaning of faith and belief, for me belief is a choice made with facts and evidence to back it up. Faith is an assumption made without facts and evidence to back it up.


  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 233 of 276 (582259)
09-20-2010 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Atheism IS a belief
Hi Rat,

I really hate when atheists do just what you did. There has to be a name for it, something like, lying?

There's really no need for that kind of talk.

Jesus doesn't stop us from doing anything, only you can, by following His ways.

Blatantly not what you said before.

If you follow His ways, you are believing in Him, if you are not, then you are not believing in Him.

Well we might reasonably suspect that, but it doesn't follow as a logical conclusion, at least not in every case. It is quite possible to believe something and yet not follow through on it.

Take the belief that murder is wrong for example. Do you really suppose that every murderer in history honestly believed that murder is right? Of course not. Many, if not most, murderers believe, as most of us do, that murder is wrong. They simply fail to live up to that belief.

For your argument to make sense, we would need to suppose that people always live up to their own beliefs, never failing, never engaging in hypocrisy. This is obviously not the case.

Tell me one thing that Jesus suggested that is the "wrong thing".

Easy.

quote:
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.

Terrible, terrible advice. Of course we should consider tomorrow, of course we should engage with the material world. This advice might be good for an ascetic hermit, but for ordinary folks, it's dreadful advice.

quote:
12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
12:5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Yeah! Screw the poor! Jesus' feet are far more important.

What a jackass.

quote:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels

There is no excuse for this kind of abhorrent nonsense. The whole concept of everlasting fire as a punishment is monstrous and wrong-headed. Only a psychopath could be so hateful and heartless. Even the vile Old Testament doesn't go in for this kind of fire and brimstone talk half as much as Jesus does.

I could go on in a similar vein for a very long time, but I believe I have made my point. Jesus' teachings are in some ways, an improvement upon previous moral codes but they are far from perfect. Modern morality is a definite improvement on this kind of thing.

Even when I was not a believer, I have a problem with the concept of science dictation all of what is right or wrong.

Science cannot tell us what is right and wrong. Science can help inform our morality by helping us achieve a desired result more effectively but it cannot provide us with any moral axioms. That is a philosophical function.

One day wine is no good for you, the next day a few glasses is good for you.

Eh? That has no connection morality. Wine will either improve your health or worsen your health or, possibly, do a bit of both. It isn't a moral issue. I appreciate that you don't intend to but nonetheless, you are equivocating between two meanings of the word "good".

Science cannot tell us that wine is morally good. It cannot tell us that it is morally bad. It can only tell us, given the assumption that we wish to be healthy, whether wine will help achieve that goal or not.

It is possibly worth noting here that the whole wine is good/wine is bad thing is more a function of shitty science journalism than anything else. To paraphrase Ben Goldacre, some sections of the media seem to be on an ontological quest to sort all the inanimate objects in the world into those that either cause or cure cancer. That is poor journalism and extremely poor science. The reality is usually far more complicated than that.

In a way science can be like the wind, and we should just take it for what it is worth, and not make science into our god. Be realistic about it, is what I am saying.

Well great, because that's what the scientific method is telling you as well. That's what tentativity is for.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:32 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 234 of 276 (582266)
09-20-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:41 PM


Re: Atheism IS a belief
There is tons of evidence.

That's as may be. I am not presently trying to justify the opinions of the negative atheist, just to explain to you what they are.

I keep telling you guys, and we have been through this in another thread, lack of objective evidence does not proof the non-existence of something.

And we keep telling you that we agree with you on that without reservation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:41 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 235 of 276 (582278)
09-20-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by riVeRraT
09-19-2010 8:48 PM


Re: Atheism IS a belief
Human imagined? Prove that one, or else stop saying it.

There are 1000's of concepts, which one should we start with?

People are born thinking there is more to life than just this. Believing in a god and the supernatural is the default position.

You can't take a positive position without evidence. You can't say there is the supernatural and god/s without evidence, then wait to see if evidence disproves it. You can't prove a negative.

That's why the default is there is nothing until someone shows you something. People are indoctrinated into beliefs, RR. A child is born as an atheist, having never heard of anything yet. Parents mold their children's beliefs, if left alone the child would have none.

Again, you will never find God that way. It is by faith only. If you are not willing to live by faith, then you will never know God.

This is a cop-out.

Why is that so hard for you to imagine? You have never sat in a black-lit room, stoned out of your mind wondering where the hell all this came from? Ever wonder what was before the big bang? It is totally easy to imagine things working in a different way. Time travel, worm holes, the random movements of quantum particles, its all there.

Of course - stoned, trippin', I've even done DMT at a meditation retreat. It is totally easy to imagine things, but that's just what it is, an imagined thing. It does not represent reality, much less, an alternate reality in which no laws apply.

If our best equipment can't detect these "outside of the universe" realms, trippin' on some shrooms isn't going to get you closer to the answer.

Either that or I am delusional.

Well lets first admit that delusional is the one possibility that doesn't require there to exist an outside of the universe or an all knowing , all powerful, yet undetectable, invisible being that can suspend the laws of nature. In other words, what's more likely?

A theist is someone who believes in a "god", not any specific god, just a god.

But you are a Christian, you believe that Jesus was the son of god that died on the cross, etc, etc, etc. Right?

I am pretty sure that is not true. Someone chime in here. Lots of killing has gone on in the name of "god" throughout the centuries.

I meant specifically suicide bombing. What religion do suicide bombers come from?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2010 8:48 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2010 3:10 AM onifre has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 8010
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 236 of 276 (582294)
09-20-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 2:08 PM


Re: wow, didn't see that coming.
Yea, the double blind, scientific study evidence to prove the creator of everything, who doesn't want you to prove He exists, will be hard, and probably impossible to find.

Then apparently God wants to be left alone, and I am more than happy to oblige.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 2:08 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 237 of 276 (582308)
09-20-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:24 PM


Re: trust
And experience has shown me that when someone says 'My claim is true, I can't prove it, I can't show it to you, you'll just have to trust me - it's the only way to know I'm telling the truth.
Well, I don't think that way, or speak that way, and neither did Jesus.

Not those same words - because when put like that it becomes rather transparent. You believe Jesus Christ is our saviour and was God and did miracles. You claim this is true.

so

quote:
My claim is true

Check.

You also state that you can't prove it.

quote:
I can't prove it, I can't show it to you

Check

You also say that 'God wants us to believe by faith' which is basically saying

quote:
you'll just have to trust me

Check

Now of course- most people say "But it isn't me you have to trust, it's God/Jesus." - but God isn't making the claims. You are claiming that God is making the claims, not just you but all other Christians.

Of course - if you can do better than that - I'm all ears. Why should I accept your claims if the answer is not "you have to take it on faith!" - or can you explain why faith is something different than trust?

Don't confuse trust with faith, or belief.

You seem to be confusing them. Faith and trust are very related terms, surely? Everytime I've discussed it with a theist they have confirmed that having faith is basically equivalent to having trust. You hold the belief, not because of the evidence, but because you have decided to trust the claims are true very strongly.

Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.

If you have a different version that most of the people I've spoken with before - spit it out

I think Jesus taught us a bunch of things, and if you can see the truth in those things, then you are on your way to faith.

So to be clear - do I need to see the truth in what Jesus taught which will lead to faith or do I need faith to see the truth in what Jesus taught? It's important to know - because Christians keep giving me different answers depending on where abouts in the argument we are (usually, by the end, I need to have faith to see the truth).

Surely I need to have faith that the 'teachings' are indeed Jesus' teaching and not the teachings of someone else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:24 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Tram law, posted 09-20-2010 7:29 PM Modulous has responded

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2963 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 238 of 276 (582316)
09-20-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Modulous
09-20-2010 6:50 PM


Re: trust

Surely I need to have faith that the 'teachings' are indeed Jesus' teaching and not the teachings of someone else?

Yes. There are many different versions of the Bible.

The most popular one in America is KJV, but mostly because it is a protestant Bible. Catholics of Course use the Catholic Bible. And there are older Bibles, such as the 1411 Bible. In the modern age we have the New International One, the Jeffersonian Bible, the book Of Mormon, and the Conservative Bible.

In each of these Bibles the language is changed to reflect the beliefs of its writers.

For example (this is just an arbitrary choice) of how a verse can be change to reflect the beliefs of the writers:

KJV
Acts 2:1 - 'And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.'

NIV
Acts 2:1 - 'When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.'

Now you'd think there was not much of a difference between the versus, but there is one difference. The word accord is missing in the NIV version, and that changes the meaning of the entire verse.

According to Webster's dictionary, the word accord means to bring into agreement.

So, without the word accord in the NIV version, that would mean that they were not in agreement with each other. That changes the entire message, does it not?

So if it were truly the words of Jesus, why would there be different versions of the verse and the Bible?

If God were all powerful and omnipotent, why would he allow these kinds of variations and interpretations of his words? It seems to me that it would be simpler to keep the Bible to only one version and make it very clear to everybody so that there would be no misunderstandings and misuses of the Bible. OR ELSE!

So you see, a lot of faith is needed to accept the Bible is of the word of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2010 6:50 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2010 7:52 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 241 by Big_Al35, posted 09-21-2010 9:38 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 276 (582323)
09-20-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Tram law
09-20-2010 7:29 PM


NIV
Now you'd think there was not much of a difference between the versus, but there is one difference. The word accord is missing in the NIV version, and that changes the meaning of the entire verse.

According to Webster's dictionary, the word accord means to bring into agreement.

So, without the word accord in the NIV version, that would mean that they were not in agreement with each other. That changes the entire message, does it not?

If you had never read any other version of the Bible but the NIV would you have concluded that they were not in agreement? I don't know for a fact - but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that NIV scholars thought the 'accord' was a later addition, or maybe they just thought it redundant.

If God were all powerful and omnipotent, why would he allow these kinds of variations and interpretations of his words?

Remember the tower of Babel?

The real question is - why not preserve the originals if they were so important? But this is a Bible Study topic and so we should probably leave it there


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Tram law, posted 09-20-2010 7:29 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 8:05 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31276
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 240 of 276 (582326)
09-20-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Modulous
09-20-2010 7:52 PM


Re: NIV
The real question is - why not preserve the originals if they were so important?

An even bigger question is why the God could not at a minimum leave a list of which books should be included or excluded? The reality though is that there is no one Universal Canon. In fact, the ONLY books that are common to all the Canon are the first five, the Pentateuch.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 09-20-2010 7:52 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019